Posted on 10/12/2012 6:25:32 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-Birth_Abortion_Ban_Act
Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003
The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (Pub.L. 108-105, 117 Stat. 1201, enacted November 5, 2003, 18 U.S.C. § 1531,[1] PBA Ban) is a United States law prohibiting a form of late-term abortion that the Act calls “partial-birth abortion”, often referred to in medical literature as intact dilation and extraction.[2] Under this law, “Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.” The law was enacted in 2003, and in 2007 its constitutionality was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart.
Here is the weak point in your whole argument: it is the Congress that decides the budget.
That is to say, the President Constitutionally has very little [read nothing] to do with our debt.
And of course, the FR50 is still voting for half a dozen other candidates as silly as Ron Paul..............
Irrelevant; just because we're presented with a vote Stalin or Mao situation does not mean that I have to acquiesce to saying that one of them is good.
Romney has promised to repeal 0bama’s executive order authorizing taxpayer fund to be used to pay for abortions overseas.
By that act alone the number of abortions will go down under a Romney Presidency.
Using his own executive orders... ignoring the questions of if that's a proper use of an Executive Order, or if they are themselves legitimate.
But ignoring the questionable legitimacy of executive orders, that will do nothing to stop the infanticide here; IOW, it's a "feel good" measure that has nothing to do with the issue here.
The NRA has endorsed Romney as “the only hope of firearms freedom”.
The NRA, quite frankly, is either a bunch of cowards or in collusion with those who would enslave us. They will not take on unambiguous State-level cases that relate to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms; to wit NM's Constitution explicitly prohibits laws that "abridge the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense" yet NMSA 30-7-2.4 is a state statute which prohibits firearms on university campuses. [Note, it's a State Statute, private property does not come into play in its contraconstitutionality.]
So the only vote a real pro lifer/pro guns right voter can make is for Romney.
The man who signed his own Assault Weapons Ban into law?
Anything else is merely clinging to sour grapes because your candidate of choice did not win the 2012 GOP nomination
Look buddy, I held my nose and voted for McCain in 2008; after that I resolved not to be taken in again by "the other guy's worse", and in fact I think it not inconceivable that Romney would be worse than Obama. {Consider how many pople will think "we changed things!" and be lulled into complacency, think how much bad legislation the Congress could pass with him as President; the Patriot Act springs immediately to mind, yet thanks to Obama's abuses there've been more and more people waking up to government abuse/corruption like that internet-censorship act or the NDAA and they have begun to stir against them. Would they do so if Romney was president? Would YOU do so if Romney was president, or would you give him "the benefit of the doubt" because "he's one of us"?}
This is the great thing about you Ron Paul supporters.
Once we pin you down with the facts, you always resort back to your emotion based drivel. The Paul crowd, and the Left, share that character flaw. You assume emotion based drivel screamed at volume make up for a complete lack of reason and fact.
The veneer of reason the Paul crowd affects is about a millimeter thick.
Funny; I don't think I've mentioned anything about supporting Ron Paul on this thread.
Once we pin you down with the facts, you always resort back to your emotion based drivel.
Um, I'm sorry; but I believe that most of the facts are supportive of my arguments. -- Romney is a horrible choice for president he CANNOT save us from fiscal collapse because the president CANNOT LEGALLY do so (budget is Congress's job), Romney has a proven track record of appointing people like Marianne C. Hinkle and Stephen Abany (there was a better link to another, better [and extensive] article detailing many of Romney's appointments, and why they were bad and objectively liberal and/or activist), Romney supports legal abortion "when the mother's health is a concern" which really translates [from politi-speak] to anytime and anywhere, Romney signed into law a gun ban, Romney signed into law socialized medicine, the man is not going to be good for the country.
The Paul crowd, and the Left, share that character flaw. You assume emotion based drivel screamed at volume make up for a complete lack of reason and fact.
Go take a look at my Post 29, specifically my reasons for being against the War on Drugs... can you honestly say that those reasons are "emotion based drivel screamed at volume"? (Or do you need me to lay them out step by step?)
The veneer of reason the Paul crowd affects is about a millimeter thick.
Where exactly are you getting the reasons for lumping me in "the Paul crowd" if I haven't really said anything in support of him on this thread.
Could it be that you are emotionally reacting to my rejection of Romney, someone I consider to be just as dangerous as Obama?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.